Friday, July 29, 2016

With all the Feminist jargon about to hit the fan, I was rereading some stuff and came across this.

Good Times.

This election more than anything else, will be an election for manhood of America. If we really have been pounded into the dirt by the sisterhood and are comfortable having our mansplaining stifled by law, and being accused of rape for looking at a woman who isn't interested in us, then Hillary really will be our next President. It's the sisterhood against the Alt-right. The unapologetic bad boys who have no use for the female sexual imperative.

Policy? The voters don't care about policy. They care about presentation. And more than ever before this is a choice between a man, with a man's views offered from a man's perspective, and a shriveled, tired, angry woman who sees every indictment as an indictment of all women, and will be happy to present it that way. This is a battle for the manhood of America. Even we skulk off to the back of the cave with the women, or we storm out to the edge of the clearing and face down the saber-toothed Muslim.

My brother believes that voting for Trump is one of those things that people will be much more willing to do than say they're going to do. He expects a big gap between the polling and the voting, in favor of Trump. From this perspective I hope he's right. If we dont' figure out a way to push back on this feminizing of America, our culture is finally finished. With all the damage done to the concept of family by the sisterhood, it may be doomed already. But you know me, I just can't quit.

National Review though, can and has. They have no interest in fighting the culture war that Feminism has brought down on their heads. They are deep in the 'blue pill' mindset over there, and even published a piece by one of their trainees today calling Trump (wait for it) ... a Misogynist and openly stating that his views on women are indefensible. I wrote this in the comment section over there:

Indefensible? Try this:

Trump is not a misogynist. To claim he is, one must first embrace a Feminine-centric worldview with regard to mate selection. It is utterly beyond debate that men have (and do) judge women by their appearance. Women don't like this, but their dislike of it makes it no less a fact. Saying so out loud (which Trump is doing) only represents an unapologetic masculine worldview, and has nothing at all to do with hating women. Anti-Feminist and Misogynist are not the same thing, and Feminists should be vigorously denied the luxury of claiming that they are.

For a long time Feminists have called a male-centric view 'childish' because it looks so similar to the view of young men before they feel women's civilizing effect. But it's actually just a different perspective from which to look at the world. The efforts of women to socially invalidate a worldview like the one Trump cites aren't offered in good faith. They are nothing more than an attempt to impose a feminine defined list of priorities on male mate selection, in contradiction to the list that we men define for ourselves. It's an effort to exert 'female only' control over how relationships between men and women are defined.

Men and women think differently about a long list of things, and principle among them is how they think about what is 'attractive' in the opposite sex. That many women are interested in social and financial considerations when choosing a man (that the vast majority of men never consider when choosing a woman) is not misandrist, it is simply women following their natural instincts.

The same must be said of Trump's much more masculine (if somewhat poorly offered) view. He may not be the best choice of messenger, but that does not invalidate the message. Trump finds many women attractive but not on the terms that women (particularly physically unattractive women - the authors of Feminism) would choose for themselves. But it isn't misogynist to say so. It's a reflection of what men find attractive when they are allowed to set their own priorities, rather than the priorities that our Feminism dominated culture, try to impose on men in their stead.

At it's core, Feminism is an attempt at making female promiscuity socially acceptable and consequence free, so that women who men find unattractive can use it to make themselves seem more attractive. But the real losers of Feminism aren't men, but attractive traditionalist women. Who could argue that men are less chivalrous than they used to be? The marriage strike is a foregone conclusion, and men are (at least in many circles) far less likely to be self sacrificing for women than they were a few generations ago. Those things constituted male 'commitment', and represented an investment in monogamy by men. But there is a declining interest in that investment when the devotion of women isn't equally as assured. Feminism has not only denied them that, it makes the claim that it is morally reprehensible for men to ask for it.

Just like the "Black Lies Matter" movement, Feminism is a hyperbolic political effort that distorts reality and ignores simple facts of male-female relationships. It is the bedrock philosophy of the left which places individual feelings over objective facts, and since it has contributed so greatly to the destruction of the traditional family, it is (in my opinion) the principle component in the liberal destruction of the west.

Thankfully, the counter effects have become so severe (and the third wave demands so divorced from reality) that some women are beginning to see it for what it really is and are no longer identifying themselves as Feminists. It would be awfully nice if National Review could begin to do the same.

Someone with the ID "Brian Stone" in the comments called me "an old fat ugly man who can't get laid and wants to get mad because beautiful women don't give [him] the time of day". My response to her was that Brian was a very odd name for a woman. but it's no doubt one we'll see more often after President Hillary is sworn in.

Thursday, July 28, 2016

Peter Dinklage, the actor who plays Tyrion Lannister on HBO's Game of Thrones, is short. He's very short. He's exceptionally short. He knows he's short, and everyone who knows who he is, also knows it. It takes very little persuasive ability to convince people that he's short. "Just look at him." is usually all it takes. Going to great lengths to convince people of his shortness (which I hope I have not quite done here) seems mean spirited and pointless. To bother to do so at all says far more about the person speaking than it does about Peter Dinklage.

Kevin Williamson is not short. He's a little on the bulky side, but much less than he used to be, and is actually looking pretty good lately, his genetics and past habits taken into full consideration. The shaved head is a style thing and wouldn't work for me, but I personally think he pulls it off. Unless you're the kind of person who likes to root around in childhood psychology issues (I very much am not) none of that tells you anything important about Kevin Williamson, and spending a lot of time talking about his looks would be mean spirited and pointless. It would say far more about the person speaking than it does about Kevin Williamson.

If you want to understand Kevin Williamson, the thing you need to look at is his intelligence. He's blisteringly smart. He pokes fun at himself and his 'English Major Math" but his facility with words far more than makes up for his lack of comfort with differential calculus. He's a first rate writer, with a sound philosophy regarding politics and the role of American government. And he has many many useful and productive things to say on that score. He's probably no good at running a marathon or competitive swimming, but he's good at what he does. And like Peter Dinklage and the rest of us, he's chosen a path in life that makes the most of his strengths.

He's telling us that Donald Trump is a vain shallow man with a dubious record on honesty. If you don't already know this about Donald Trump, it can only be because you're unwilling to accept it. It's obvious at altitude, and whether that makes him a worse human being than say Barak Obama (who is likewise vain, shallow, and dishonest), is subject to individual opinion and individual values. If you're one of those people who thinks Peter Dinklage is tall, there really isn't any amount of talk that will convince you, and the same is true of the obvious faults in Donald Trumps character. Kevin knows this, but by continuing to relate the details in such a painstaking way, he makes himself not Trump seem mean spirited and pointless. There are more productive ways for a man like him to use his time.

And though it pains me personally to write this, at this point I think it says far more about Kevin Williamson than it does about Donald Trump.

Wednesday, July 27, 2016

When I got divorced I lost touch with a number of people. When I changed jobs and relocated to NYC, I lost touch with more. So I thought I'd put this out there expressly for the purpose of reaching those who I don't speak to often enough.

With the return of one of our original "hunting party" from Boston to NYC (if you don't know who it is then don't worry about it) we're thinking about bringing the hiatus to an end. There are tentative plans being made for a little pheasant hunting this November. Several of the people you would expect have already committed to participation, and the plans will be arranged by me. As usual, it will be hunting in the AM, followed by post shooting lunch. All plans to be announced at a later date.

Unlike sporting clays or skeet shooting, which are perfeclty suitable for new and inexperienced shooters, hunting involves a small but perfectly manageable level of risk. I'm well known in my circles as a firearms safety nazi, so I will only allow people to join our group if I have personally confirmed that they are experienced enough with shotguns and hunting safety to represent no additional risk.

Unfortunately we no longer have a facility for prescreening new shooters, so I'm afraid we'll need to restrict this party to those who have participated in one of our hunting event in the past. If you have, and you think you might like to join this time as well, feel free to drop me an email on my personal account.

The WSJ has discovered Quant trading. How ridiculous. It’s nothing really. Steven Cohen (of SAC renown) has contributed a pittance of 250 million to funding a quant platform, not unlike to the 50 or so other quant platforms that are out there right now trolling the grad schools for someone with a unique idea. Big deal.

Here’s a prediction… nothing will come of it. they'll never make any real money on anything like a reliable basis. They suffer under the illusion that the idea itself is owrth something and it really isn't. It's execution of an idea which pays the bills. But Journalists are such idiots that they have to have either a hero, a villain or both in every story.

250 million may seem like a lot of cash, but it isn’t in that space, and it isn’t for Steve Cohen. It’s a hedge. A tiny option on an idea which may be done well by the managers, but is still trolling in wildly over-fished waters. Long dated (more than a few minutes) quant strategies are totally over played in the US market. There is no ‘information content’ in the commonly available data, and the only people making money are the ones who are prepared to take on liquidity risk (which this platform will not) or have access to expensive (as in difficult to obtain or produce) data. That’s it.

The same people that are applying to this platform are probably the same people I was interviewing when I ran quant Equity Trading at my last hedge fund – a hedge fund which, by the way, was about 4 times the size of this brilliant new idea that the WSJ just discovered.

There is really nothing in that story, unless you want to read the comments section for a yuck. Many of these brilliant minds are mentioning long term capital as if that relatively low tech effort invalidates the idea of quant. Or they’re talking about the same things I heard from NYSE floor brokers in 1992 when they said that no computer could ever do their job because there were too many ‘externalities’ that made it too complex for an algorithm. Of course, all those floor brokers (100%) have since been rendered unemployed by trading programs.

The US equity market is no place for a new long dated quant strategy of any type. And the reason is quite simple. That market is too efficient. Absent dividends it’s a zero sum game, and there aren’t enough people losing big money in that market anymore for anyone to make big money. It’s not timing, or sophistication. It’s a stratospheric implied correlation, and the rise of ETF’s that have killed US Equity Quant.

Steve knows that, which is why he only bet 250 million. I’m only mentioning it here because I'm so amazed that the WSJ doesn’t realize it.

OK, so several years ago when I working in research at an unnamed Hedge Fund, a buddy got the two of us in to see the people who produce Reuters business news. We took a tour of the facility and met with the editors. The whole while reporters scurried to and fro giving us dirty looks. I assumed it was because we looked like two hedge fund guys strolling around the place with their bosses, and everybody hates hedge fund guys. The bosses themselves only looked like they were putting up with us because it meant that they could get an expensive lunch on their expense account. But eventually, we sat down and they asked us what they could do to make their product more competitive.

I told them that what they should do is expose their editorial process decisions as an expensive elite product delivered to just the few very large investors who could afford it. Instead of telling us what happened yesterday (which we already knew ahead of them in most cases anyway) they should tell us instead what they planned on working on tomorrow. You’re sending 2 people to this conference, and another to interview that person etc. They didn’t have to tell us what they said in advance. That would be unfair. Just tell us who they’re planning on talking to and how many of their relatively scarce news gathering resources they’ll be committing to it.

Since it would be a limited access product it would maintain its market value, and though they were charging upward of a million a year for access to 100 or so of the investors who could afford to pay for it, people would stand in line and beg to get it. We could use that data to infer you see. Knowing our markets better than they do, we could tell what was likely to be said before it’s actually published. That would be a huge advantage and would easily be worth a million a year. There are several products like that for the bigger investors already. This would only be different because it’s a news service rather than a research firm.

They scoffed at the idea of course. We talked about that a bit and it eventually came out that the reason they didn’t want to expose that data wasn’t because of some ‘fairness’ issue or legal constraint. They were just lazy, and didn’t want anyone to know how little they actually worked. They didn’t want to make it so apparent that the news service was really just one big echo chamber where all they did was follow around all the other journalists, and repeat what was said among themselves. It was all a bit of a joke really. And that was the business news section, not the political news section. The business guys were by far the tallest midgets in the room when it comes to character.

I don’t have much of a bigger point here except this:

There is a reason people think so little of journalists without ever having to meet them. It’s because they are the scum of the earth, and like Hillary, they aren’t sophisticated enough to hide it well.

Tuesday, July 26, 2016

What will happen to Europe? My opinion vacillates between civil war and surrender to the Sharia state, which frankly depends on my mood at the time. I just don't have enough information on how the people of Europe really feel to come to a concrete opinion on the matter. On the surface I see surrender. In particular to women who seem welcome the prison of the veil.

I remind myself though that speaking freely in Europe today can easily end one's career, finances, if not one's freedom. The State wields its sword against those who leave the prescribed narrative, whilst treating the Islamic invaders with a light touch. Who really knows what anger and hate bubbles beneath the veneer in the hearts of men?

So I ask the question: Are there lions left in Europe? Will at some point the free men of Europe rise up and tear the shit out of everyone who willingly created this nightmare?

Yes, I know lions were rendered extinct in the early iron age in the European continent.... I instead refer to an ethos that real men hold. An ethos of course derided by Left.

The ethos was described by none other than Christopher Walken in a movie over a decade back. I tried to find a video to go with the audio and that would segue with the subject at hand. Alas, I kept getting the Jew-hate nonsense that infects the Alt-right. So instead I post a clip from the movie itself, so your imagination can fill in the rest.

I’m so sick of hearing the stupid talk swirling around the stupid Trump wall. Can we please talk just a little sense here? As an allegorical expression of political intent, the wall works just fine. As a symbol for Trump to express his determination to place American citizens first ahead of citizens of other nations, I like the wall. As a 30 foot high structure built of steel and stone, not so much. Go to google maps and have a look at the terrain around Big Bend national park in Texas, and you’ll realize that whatever the wall turns out to be, it isn’t going to be a line across the entire border of Mexico. But the big secret is, it doesn’t have to be.

One particularly imbecilic liberal I know said these exact words to me: “I’m pretty sure they have ladders in Mexico.” This is what passes for big thinking in Liberal circles. He followed up with a description of the prohibitive costs of trying to depart 100 billion gazillion people. This is as nonsensical as the comments about building a wall but with less virtue as political allegory. Just a bunch of misdirected noise that intentionally misses the whole point.

But if instead of indulging in intentional stupidity, we were to focus on a return to being a nation of laws instead of men (actually women) who interpret the laws with none but political means, the cost of deporting every single illegal immigrant in the US would be exactly zero. In fact, it would represent a big cost savings. Here’s how:

1. Make it illegal for any employer to hire illegal workers, punishable by a $100,000 fine per worker, and 6 months in prison for the hiring supervisor.
2. Impose a few million in fines and send a few supervisors to prison.
3. Require proof of citizenship in order to qualify for all social services except emergency medical care.
4. Require proof of citizenship to register for any public school.
I don’t care if 2/3 of the population of the contiguous 48 states is here illegally. Put these steps in place and the VAST majority of them will self deport. Presto – no more need for a wall. On the contrary, they’ll be fighting to get out.

You may call this harsh, and in fairness it is. But I’d like to remind you that not one single US citizen will be harmed in any way if these steps are put in place. Not one. Not one black American, not one Asian American, not one Latin American. A great many foreign nationals will be quite seriously inconvenienced, but they should have thought of that before they ditched out on their tourist visas and applied for welfare.

You may say this hurts the poor, and in fairness it does. But it doesn’t hurt our poor. On the contrary, I’m willing to bet that 3 months after these steps are put in place, the unemployment rate for young black Americans will drop precipitously.

Now one negative consequence of these rules will be an uptick in the violence of minority communities. Being denied a legal way to live off American Largess, a great many will turn to illegal means, and with that comes violence. But I’m confident it will be temporary, and easily restricted.

You may call this “RACIST!!!!!!!”, and if you do, I say go fuck yourself you little girl. I’ve written many times that I like Mexicans, and greatly admire their work ethic. Several of my closest friends are from Latin America, and my girlfriend is Chinese. It’s not racist to want to see rule of law returned to the United States, or to see its borders enforced. And we can’t very well ask our citizens to obey the law when we’re willing to suspend the laws for foreign nationals.

No one would be happier than me to see a great number of Mexicans applying for and receiving legal visas to enter the country and better their lives. Not only would I be happy about it, I’d be happy to be among the first to offer them legal employment. But if they are the kind of people who are willing to break the law to come here, then what other laws will they be willing to break? I don’t want those Mexicans.

Up to now, the whole ‘immigration issue’ has been an utter scam. A scam launched by Democrat politicians to stuff the voter rolls and give them electoral victories. It is quite literally nothing else. And in order to make it happen they have done great harm to the poorest Americans by importing millions of competitors for their jobs. They are fully prepared to destroy this country, and turn it into a third world cesspool in order to rule over the slime covered remains.

It’s not about the dreamers, or for the children. It’s about importing a class of easily ruled slaves.

The Trump wall is a silly stupid idea. Is he really going to build it? Who cares? What he should really do is put the incentives in place to get us the kind of foreigners we actually want, and to get rid of the ones we don’t. We don’t want La Raza types and Muslim extremists. We don’t want a new generation of Guatemalan welfare queens. We want people who believe the same things we do. We want people who want to be American, not turn America into what they came from.

We want the kind of immigrants that will embrace America and American ideals. The kind of immigrants who really will make America great again. People like that come in all colors, speak all languages, and are spread (albeit thinly) across every corner of the globe. Those are the people we really want. Not because they look like us, but because in all the ways that matter, they think like us.

This is a country built on an idea. That’s all you need to be an American. And people who think that way are the people we should be looking for. No one else.

It’s actually turning out to be an interesting election. Not the shootings, or the protests, or the other things that make Journalists salivate and Democrats dampen their depends. I mean the character and experience of the two candidates. Both can be legitimately criticized, but they have to be criticized in totally different ways. The joke going around is that it’s a choice between a heart attack and cancer. But I’m suddenly more optimistic than that. That’s a dangerous thing I know, and in my day to day life I try to avoid it. But in the interest of salving my compatriots’ anxiety just a tad, let me tell you how I see it.

Trump knows very little about governing the world’s richest and most powerful nation. He doesn’t understand our laws, our current policies, or global finance anywhere near well enough to be able to make informed rational decisions. There are criticisms of his character as well, but I’ll be honest, I think that’s a pose. Without the cameras, and speaking to someone who has no intention of publicizing his words, there is a very real difference in his personality. He doesn’t know any more in private than he does at the podium, but he’s much more circumspect about it. The fact is, just like Obama, I don’t think the Trump you see on TV is the same man as the one who will potentially sit in the Whitehouse.

So for just a minute, let’s assume I’m right. Let’s just say that the Trump who speaks to non-journalists is very different than the one who is on TV, the radio, or being quoted in print. If that’s the case, much of the arguments against him from the neo-cons fall away pretty rapidly. He’s still been divorced a few times and had a chapter 11 or two etc, those things don’t vanish. And criticisms about them are things he has to live with. But in private I believe he's less carnival barker and more carnival owner. He’ll put on the stripey suit when he as to, but he’s just as content to sit in the tent and plan which town to stop in next or whether to have the jugglers or lion tamer as the warmup to the high wire act.

If that’s so, then Trump’s problem that he needs to solve in order to be good at his new potential job is eminently solvable – especially with his resources. His problem is essentially one of information. If you have someone who knows how to think, then factual information is really the only thing required in order to teach him what to think. And I think there is reason for confidence there. Trump's experience in the private sector is wildly different than one in government or academia. In the private sector, if you fail you pay for it, where everywhere else, if you fail, someone else does. That single fact alone put’s Trump ahead of many in Washington and the left when it comes to sorting out ‘the right thing to do’. It may seem small to those of us who earn our livings, but if he can do nothing else but identify the right thing, then he may be leaps and bounds ahead of the competition.

Hillary is a different story entirely. She has spent her entire life letting others take the fall for her errors. In fact in many well documented ways, she’s taken a lack of personal accountability to an entirely new level. Ask her about her failures and she’ll tell you it was this person’s fault or that one’s. She sees no connection between her decision making and the egg on her face. She hasn’t driven herself in decades, but if she had, then she's the kind of person who would see any accident of hers as the brick wall’s fault for swerving into the street, and very much not the other way around.

In a way, you can’t blame her for this. She is a woman who was raised during the height of second wave feminism with all its paranoia about glass ceilings and the imaginary collusion of men. She quite literally believes that she lacks any personal agency whatsoever, and would sooner burn America to the ground than take responsibly for the spark that lit the fire. It’s like this with all feminists of her age. But the thing that Feminism really gave women of Hillary’s ilk is an incredibly persuasive justification for enormous self-delusion with regard to their own value. Hillary believes she really is better at doing what she does than almost anyone, and the only thing that has ever held her back was the machinations of others who are as brazenly power starved as she is.

Her obvious cynicism is a product of her emotional projection. She truly believes in ‘right wing conspiracies’ because she’s hatched a few of her own from the left. It has never occurred to her that she isn’t smarter, more fluent, more clever, and in all ways ‘better’ than the competition, even if the long personal history and professional track record she’s produced say otherwise. She has destroyed lives so naturally she imagines others out there trying to do the same to her. She is the living manifestation of the solipsistic failure of the philosophy of Feminism, taken to its ultimate extreme.

She has complete and utter contempt for her supporters, and opponents alike. She sees them as dolts who will believe anything she tells them to so long as the messaging is properly formed. And it is totally and utterly beyond her comprehension why any right thinking person wouldn’t see her as the right person to rule America, because she is so certain of it herself. She’s a walking, coughing poster child of the bitter and angry militant feminist who won’t rest until she sees the world as it is reshaped in the image she wants, and the image she wants is with her at the top of the pyramid.

This… she is totally and utterly convinced … is her personal manifest destiny. And Fuck all those idiots who disagree. If she could do it without effecting the Electoral College, she’d happily load them all onto boxcars and ship them off to camps.

Not only should a woman like Hillary not be President, she shouldn’t be allowed to vote. Where Trump knows ‘how’ to think but lacks the information he needs, she has had mountains of information, but doesn’t know how to process it in a way that will produce a positive outcome. Every single solution she would craft would make the world a worse place, but would both make her feel good about herself, and increase her power – which in point of fact is probably exactly the same thing. She is the embodiment of delusional Feminism in a Mao collared pantsuit, and a living example of avarice given human form.

Her main weakness is that she doesn’t hide it any better than your average woman. And the people, though not geniuses, are not nearly as stupid as Hillary believes them to be. They see what she is. And the people who support her are going to dwindle. The more we get to know the media’s latest reboot of her image, the more America will come to despise her. Because changing her image doesn’t change her. And we already know who and what she is.

To be clear, I don't know if Hillary is an actual lesbian and I don't care. She acts just as crazy as one, and that's more than enough for me. All that's missing is the boot camp haircut and boots. We call those Feminists 'man hating' which they surely are. But Hillary doesn't just hate men, she hates everyone who stands in the way of her and her ultimate goal - unrestricted power.

Obama was our first Female president. Hillary can only ever be our first ‘angry militant feminist president’, replete with all the bad fashion sense, weight problems and serious mental illness that are so common among that group. She’s an angry, vengeful, Eleanor Roosevelt without the hat. And a woman who is so delusional about herself, the world, and the people around her, will never ever be able to get herself elected President. I don’t know what she’s going to do or say to screw it up, but because she lacks the ability to think clearly about anything, she is certainly going to mess up something.

Trump may be under informed, but he can fix that. But there ain’t no fixing what’s wrong with Hillary.

Monday, July 25, 2016

I never liked Debbie Wasserman Schultz. She always seemed to me to be that ugly mix of self-delusion and cynicism that you see from most members of the sisterhood when they enter the field of politics as a vocation. They all sound to me like a mix between Jimmy Hoffa and Gladys Kravitz from bewitched. Half of you wants to slap her on the ass (just for the shock value) and the other half of you wants to punch her in the mouth. Every time she speaks some useless 1960's pablum about 'hearing all the voices' comes out, and you know she never means a word of it. Mostly you feel like she just wants you to shut up and let her do things the way she wants, however crazy and stupid that is. As it turns out, that's pretty much what she's been doing anyway.

And there is a whole lot of that going on in Philly this week.

For a guy who lived so near to Philadelphia, I don't know it very well. I ran the Marathon there a few years ago, and had a hell of a time with it, but apart from that I've never really been. New York was always my city, and Philly wasn't as convenient. My brother went to school there, but I never visited him when he did. So my impressions of the place really only involve running through 26 miles of it, exactly once. And you can't get to know a city very well that way.

Still, when I imagine the the thousands of cops outside the convention protecting the (mostly) white people inside from the (mostly) black people outside, all the while calling the cops outside a bunch of racists, and I kind of wish the cops would all just let the protesters go in and work it out with the delegates on their own. The way I see it, they all deserve each other. They're the ones who whipped up this frenzy, so they should be the ones who have to deal with it. It's a shame the cops have to act as middlemen.

But you know how it is. There is just no talking to old ladies. They're absolutely certain that they're right about everything, and that you're just an idiot. And that's the modern Democrat party. A bunch of old ladies telling their shriveled and defeated men what to do. The Democrat party hasn't just become the party of women, it's become the party of shriveled bitter old women that no man wants any part of. Who need to hear that shrill nonsense from them.

I'm happy the truth has come out about Debbie. I'm happy her incredibly cynicism has come through thanks to wikileaks. She, Pelosi, and Clinton are three peas in a pod. A bunch of old ladies - crazy as batshit - who America needs to hear less from, not more. Debbie's own Florida delegates practically chased her from a meeting this morning with torches and pitchforks. And she deserves every second of it. And though I never want to see violence, I hope the same happens to the rest of the old ladies in Philly. America would be a much better place if we communally decided to put them all in a home.

With all their talk about 'the things we can do together', nothing would be as productive for America as something like that.

Friday, July 22, 2016

It’s really a very simple principle, henceforth known as RFNJ rule number 3. As a refresher, RFNJ rules number 1 & 2 are:

1. How we decide, is who we are.
2. There is a totality of difference between ‘thinking’ and ‘feeling’.

And now, RFNJ rule number 3:

3. Everyone assumes that everyone else thinks, just like they do.

I confess, English doesn’t lend itself very well to the description of RFNJ rule number 3. It’s probably easier to say in German. But since I don’t speak German and my brother’s German vocabulary is limited to the kinds of things you’d read in deciphered East German military broadcasts, let me shed a little descriptive light in my native tongue.

The idea is that when you try to understand the thought processes of others, you assume incorrectly, that their basic process of weighing facts and evidence against their own insecurities, fears, and other feelings, is basically the same as yours is. We all assume that others all see the same things in the same light as we do, and are trying to accomplish the same things with their proposed solutions to the same problem. This is very much not the case, and is complicated by the fact that although we may be trying to accomplish very different things, we often use the same words to describe them.

This rule applies to all humans across the political spectrum, and is the cause of much misunderstanding across the political divide. It is the error that is the source of the view for conservatives that liberals are ‘stupid’, and for liberals that conservatives are ‘consumed with hate’. Liberals, as we know, don’t think the way conservatives do. Stated in purely relative terms and speaking about the average liberal vs. the average conservative, liberals are much more emotionally driven in their thought processes than conservatives are. Conservatives meanwhile, can be accurately described as being colder and more analytical than liberals. So conservatives worry much more about ‘being’ right while liberal worry about ‘feeling’ right.

Take the relatively unemotional example of tax rates. Liberals have often said that they would be willing to raise tax rates on the rich even if it means less revenue for the government. Thinking in the way they do, and weighing their own feelings of fairness against the prospect of reduced revenue for the government, they still come down on the side of their own feelings. Liberals don’t like the rich because they envy them. And they know their base don’t like them either. So for them it’s a simple decisions about what’s ‘right’ in spite of the negative outcome of less revenue.

Conservatives meanwhile, are not so emotional. They see the issue of taxation as the means by which the government is funded and are interested much more in efficiency than their feelings about the rich. Feelings never even enter into the equation for them. They look at the reduced revenue and conclude that regardless of the emotion of the people making the decision, since the effect is negative the idea is negative. For them it’s equally straightforward.

The fun part comes from the analysis of those positions by celebrities, and the news media. To the conservative, the liberal solution to the tax rate issue clearly looks ‘stupid’, while the liberal view of the conservative position looks like ‘hatred of the poor’. The rich have more than the poor and to the liberal this seems ‘unfair’ on its face. It therefore requires no further analysis of the issue as far as they’re concerned.

Which brings me to the issue of the day. I write this the day after Donald Trump’s acceptance speech at the Republican convention. and to listen to the media this morning, America, or at least the Republican party is now a group of people consumed with ‘Hate’ from sea to shining sea. We hate illegal immigrants, blacks, the poor, women, and anyone who is uneducated enough to misunderstand RFNJ rule number 2. This should tell you something about the political leanings of those celebrities and news media types. It should also tell you that the person you’re speaking to will NEVER be persuaded by facts, evidence or rationally derived statistics. If you don’t touch them emotionally, you will never change their mind about anything.

To conservatives of course, those people all look like ‘idiots’ though clearly some of them must not be. A cynical man might think that one of the benchmarks of the Democrat party (to which these people all but universally belong) is the intentional manipulation of the emotions of their supporters who cannot understand RFNJ rule number 2, and are instead pulled hither and yon in their life decisions by how they feel that particular day. (I myself am just a cynic, but I leave you to form your own conclusions.)

But regardless of how you feel about the character of the Democratic leadership, there are many decent, honorable well intentioned liberals in America who truly do want what’s best for the country. They are just confused about which mental processes they should rely on to arrive at proposals to achieve those goals. To them, relying on anything but their fear of violence, their insecurity about their lack of success with money or dating or whatever, is deeply and fully 'wrong'. Disagree with them and they will become angry in the exact degree to which they are ego invested in that view.

And doing so today will almost certainly result in you being called out for your ‘hatred’ of someone or something. It’s quite astounding really how the ego investment of liberals in their emotionally defensive worldview, will allow them to rationalize connections between totally differing situations in order to meet their first rule of politics which is that all proposed solutions much first and foremost ‘feel’ good to the proposer. Opposing inefficient tax policy is hatred of the poor. Supporting the right of police to defend themselves against violent criminals is 'hatred of blacks'. Supporting the free market for determining wages or opposing government intervention in privately negotiated contracts is 'hatred of women', supporting enforcement of our borders and laws is 'hatred of illegal immigrants'.

So this election cycle will be one where any conservative should be prepared to be called out for their ‘hatred’. And when this happens to you, I hope you can keep in mind that the person who is accusing you of this is not talking about your hate (which they don’t actually know the first thing about) they are simply projecting their own emotionalism onto you. They are assuming that your decision is driven by exactly as much emotion as their decision, and nothing more.

We should also remember that if they are under the age of 40, this probably isn't their fault. We have been trained in the academy since the 60's to believe that subjective feelings 'should' be more important than intellectually rigorous thoughts when deriving social policy. Generations of American have been sold a bill of goods by Academics who have built the entire philosophies of Gender and Racial studies around that basic principle, and they have long since infected ever other discipline of study. It's a miracle if a kid can get through that onslaught of indoctrination without being a little muddle headed.

So at best, try to be patient. At worst, I'd suggest trying to scare them or some other emotionally driven argument. Neither will probably do any good, but there is really no sense in getting worked up over the accusations of someone who doesn't understand these basic differences. Just remember that the accusation is inevitable, and says far more about the motives of the accuser than it ever will about the accused. As I see it, by the terms that liberals have defined we not only should be America the Hate-iful, but right now we quite desperately need to be. And the mark of a real leader is doing what must be done, even when you aren't liked for doing it.

The Cuck-spiracies started at the moment Trump announced his candidacy. The theory was that Trump would savage the Repubs contenders so bad, that Hillary would wade in and have a walk in the park to the presidency.
Panties are still in a bunch at NR and other NeverTrump encampments. Last night the cucks came out at first when Tom Barrack (CEO of Colony Capital - [disclaimer: I own this stock]) gave what I considered a combination of an Irish Eulogy (possibly directed at the corpse of the mainstream) with more so an upbeat "best man" wedding speech. The cucks wanted nothing to do with it and were lock-step in snark with liberals. Barrack even said his speech wasn't going to rais the rafters. It was no BS and from the heart. Refreshing.
The best cuck-spiracy theory of them all was puked by none-other than the unhinged, holier-than-thou, Glen Beck. Although Miami is a big city, access to talk radio is limited. Michael Savage is available but you need a vintage CB-Radio antenna to bring in a clear signal. So I'm stuck with Glen as ride home from work. Glen's theories ranged from Melania's speech was sabotaged from the inside to secret meetings behind closed doors with two-faced delegates. Yep, Glen trotted out the ol' "I heard from a very reliable source that people speaking in support of Trump at the convention were secretly plotting for 2020." ... you mean just like when McCain ran and Romney after that?
Not be left out, people in the NR circle were lighting up the Twitter sphere with "mourning in America" tweets, Kevin W was very active and chimed in on the Mussolini comparisons. Jonah Goldberg lamented that Trump doesn't understand DC or Policy. Kevin was also dismayed by the "yelling". What the f*ck happened at NR? Did someone put estrogen in the water cooler?
These same folks telling me Trump is a joke are the ones that told me to believe in Romney and McCain before that...
Neither of those two could deliver a speech with force or resonance. Trump kept it plain spoken but forceful. The lily-livers on the right are so flabbergasted that I couldn't separate their spilled pablum from people like Sally Kohn. If I took my marching orders from NR I would abstain from November and plan for 2020. Would they support Cruz? Nope. So NR will gin-up a new proto-repub candidate that will be in their image and . A bland DC insider that recites policy, wears Rugby ties and who's biggest paycheck came from writing opinion pieces or was a lifelong congress critter.
Their lament is music to my ears. I used to enjoy NR, but Rich Lowry and his pals are wussified.
Whenever I read NR or commentary from their peanut gallery, I use the Nathan Lane "Bird Cage" character as the narrative voice, complete with exclamations and swoons. It is amusing and fitting.
Bring on the debates. I believe Trump will plow right through Hillary and reveal her many flaws on stage. The cucks will call him a classless brute. So will the Libs. My boss asked me what I thought. I told him Trump will probably win by the biggest margin in history. he was shocked. He's a cuck. I explained that Hillary, even to her most earnest supporters, on her best day is un-listenable ! I also mentioned that nobody cares about Hillary. Did anyone even care when she selected Kaine to be a running mate? Seriously - it was like a Pat Paulson schtick. Philadelphia will be interesting, and Tom makes a great observation. First time in a long time I look forward to November.

And of course, we all know who Trayvon was. He was the 17 year old who doubled back one Florida evening to "teach George Zimmerman a lesson" and ended up getting shot for his trouble.

The Democratic convention will be protected from the very large group of protesters that have been promised from the now defeated Bernie Sanders camp, by none other than the Philadelphia, and Pennsylvania State Police. Wouldn't it be fun if they were no more successful at protecting the Democrats at the convention, than the Democrat policies implemented in Washington have been at achieving their proposed goals?

The irony here is pretty rich. The people inside being protected from the angry mob that they themselves incited, by the very people they say are doing something wrong. Clearly this is a platform that will work very well for the future of America.

George Carlin had a great line about driving on the highway. He used to say that anyone going slower than you is a “IDIOT!” and anyone going faster than you is an “ASSHOLE!”. What the great comedian never realized was, it isn’t just on the highway.

I am not a #nevertrump guy. Gun rights are my thing, so I can’t have Hillary setting up the Supreme Court. As unreliable as Trump is, he’s better than her. That’s the end of it. But to the Nevertrump people, the fact that I would vote for him makes me either an idiot or an asshole, depending on which way you think about it. I don’t think the nevertrumpers I know believe we are as close to the edge as I do. They’re taking a longer term view, and are already thinking about recovery in 2020. Me, I’m not so optimistic. It think anything resembling recovery from President Hillary will take at least 40 years and will probably involve learning the Koran. I'm not much of a Catholic but I've been one a long time, so I'm disinclined to change.

When I look at the policy direction of the Federal government, I see several decisions which have no effective checks on them. Sure the system was designed for checks and balances, but that didn’t stop Obamacare, the explosion of the Federal debt, or the lack of an actual budget. It never even slowed down the policy of spending money today that we will, in the most optimistic scenario (which I do not subscribe to) be collecting the taxes to pay decades from now. It never stopped the Justice department from rewriting the law from the prosecution side, or the constant haranguing of private citizens by lawsuits designed to make them comply with invented rights of others.

I’m not talking principles here. I doubt you can get a hair’s width between the principles of someone like Jonah Goldberg and I. What I’m talking about is survival. I do not see our lack of fiscal responsibility as a scenario which anyone is trying to end. And it’s just as well because the act of trying to defuse the bomb is very likely going to be the thing to set it off. But another decade or so of Democratic rule will mean nothing but trying to keep the bomb safe by packing it in kerosene soaked newspaper and C4. It may not set things off but it will make things much worse when it happens.

The key here that the Democrats do not know how to think about the consequences (let alone the unintended consequences) of their actions. They think they can legislate away reality (or at least circumvent if by decree lacking actual legislation), but reality doesn’t care if you acknowledge it. Reality will always have the last laugh. And the reality is that the American populace no longer deserves self rule.

I would rather Trump blow it all up today when I’m young enough and healthy enough to recover from it. If it happens when most informed people I know expect it to, then I’ll be too old to be anything but a burden to my daughter. Who will have her own problems to solve. That doesn’t mean Trump is going to blow it up, though that’s probably the way to bet. But at least he won’t be shipping in truckloads of kerosene soaked rags and explosives.

If all he does is fire 10% of every Federal department, it would be an incredibly productive start in the right direction - a direction we've ignored for far too long. Americans are incredibly resilient and productive. Lower the cost of compliance for them and they will spring into action creating jobs and creating wealth. Things will begin to improve. Enough? I don’t know. But it would be a good start.

By being an outsider, Trump is the last best hope of saving Obama’s America from itself. By rejecting the ‘normal course of business’ he can only improve things. There will be a small chance that he lights the fire that brings it all down, but failing that, there is almost nowhere to go but up.

Trump isn't my perfect candidate, but I've voted for imperfect candidates before, and may again. He is however, the least bad one.

Wednesday, July 20, 2016

The other day, I was listening to the Kevin Williamson – Charlie Cooke podcast, “Mad Dogs and Englishmen”. I like Kevin personally (though not so much Charlie), and their podcast is usually an interesting take on things. Since they’re both very pro-gun, I usually enjoy what they have to say on the topic. Anyway, during this week’s podcast, Kevin offered an aside to another discussions that I though was interesting.

Basically he said that the way Trump fans are always talking about the masculinity of his message was actually a throwback to Gay media from the 70’s. Is it? You got me. I’m not exactly up on my gay themed messaging history. But on a certain level I guess I can see his point. I knew a couple of guys who were very into body building back then and I was always a little heterosexually suspicious at the way they seemed to fetishize the male form. These days of course, no one would care. But at that time and place, being gay was still something where you wanted to at least keep it to yourself. And if I understand Kevin’s point correctly, I can see where he’s going with it.

None the less though I think it’s an irrelevant swipe at the people who have been the most unjustly critical of him. Kevin isn’t offering an analysis of the effectiveness of Trumps message, he's just insulting his supporters (I suspect) because they've been so insulting toward him. In his typically cerebral way, he’s saying that the very people who support Trump and criticize him for being a “cuckservative”, are actually the ones who may have questions about their own masculinity.

This seems like a cheap, unjustified shot to me - like the big (intellectual) kid picking on the little (intellectual) kids. Though I think if anyone is entitled it’s probably Kevin. Twitter has been a source of virtually perpetual insult to him since he came out as a #nevertrump supporter. And all of it is probably unjustified. Though with it all out there, I think it’s a shame to see him reduced to the level of veiled insults to a bunch of idiots who wouldn’t know a serious thought if it pummeled them about the head and shoulders.

I do think Trump’s more masculine message is helping him greatly and net-net will be a good thing for the Republican party, and I’ve written about that a lot. But Kevin wasn’t talking about that. He was talking about the way the pro wrestling fans that make up a certain percentage of Trump’s base took it. I view the 'thinking' of those supporters as a kind of ‘necessary evil’ of the change in presentation between Trump and say Romney, but Kevin looks at it as something that invalidates the whole principle of the message. He could have lots of personal reasons for that but it's all wasted on me. I think it’s a shame to see one of the leading conservative minds of our time calling a whole big bunch of people gay simply because they've been mean to him, but this is the world we live in I guess. You can cram an insult into 128 characters, but it’s hard to fit an actual idea into that space.

Then there is the Milo incident. Last night he was "permanently banned" for his supporters getting in a scuff with a big unattractive black woman I've never heard of. Twitter is a private company, and is entitled to stifle any speech they see fit. That’s a given. But… their customer base should recognize that they are a company who, like much of the rest of western society, is deep in the thrall of anti-white and anti-male, social justice. Under that philosophy, you can say things about white people or men and the society they’ve built that you cannot say about the female or black community or the subculture they’ve built. Image of a hooded black man slashing the throat of a cop – that’s OK. Call a big, unattractive black woman a gorilla, that’s not OK. The hypocrisy is obvious to everyone not in thrall to the cult of the left, but that includes Twitter’s operating managers, all of the mainstream media, and one of our major political parties.

I’m a huge Milo fan, and his response was classic. “If I’m a white supremacist then I’m the first black cock sucking white supremacist in history”. You gotta love the guy. In an age where who you are means far FAR more than what you do or say, the guy sure knows how to play the game. I don’t have a Twitter account for obvious reasons, but I’m reliably told that as of this morning, #FREEMILO was the number one trending tag. If Twitter cares about its stockholders, it had better stop trying to ‘effect social justice’ and start listening to its consumers. But I guess they’re betting on being the only game in town.

Either way though, twitter is an obvious cesspool, and stands zero chance in my opinion of ever being anything close to a legitimate source of actual information. Average is a lot dumber than it looks, and when you’re dealing with numbers like Twitter, your average user is going to be way down there in the double digits for IQ. There is no place for thinking on a platform like that, so it naturally attracts people who are disinclined to thinking. Personally I can’t wait to see it wither like MySpace did. If it can reduce Kevin Williamson to sneering and snarking, and still can't see it's own one sided take politically, then there is little virtue in that particular train wreck.

Tuesday, July 19, 2016

If you see me walking along in Manhattan - raging to myself, visibly angry - at the injustice of the way the Romulans have encroached on the neutral zone, you’d call me crazy. If you saw me doing the same thing only I was standing in front of a crowd of about 50 geeky looking middle aged white guys with signs and placards that say “Romulans go home”, and they cheered every time I uttered some particularly angry expression or mentioned what occurred on a particular star date, you’d still call us all crazy.

The “Black Lives Matter” movement and all the self-important little militant black separatist movements are exactly the same. You are raging against a totally imaginary ‘injustice’. Your oppression is only in your own heads. Being successful in the world has turned out to be harder than you imagined, and you are very angry about that. But it’s hard for everyone, not just you. It isn’t reality you’re complaining about it’s your own fantasy. A fantasy born of your own imaginations.

Just because you feels oppressed, doesn’t automatically mean you are oppressed. Our country has vast rafts of laws which give black Americans specific advantages based on absolutely nothing but the color of your skin. If the advantages this provides aren’t enough for you, or if you fail to make the most of them, that’s not injustice. It really just means you’re more of a loser than you are prepared to admit.

Your feelings, are your problem. Don’t tell me how you feel. I don’t care. The only thing I care about is evidence. I know you can’t tell the difference between your feelings and evidence, so let me explain it. Evidence is the kind of thing I can verify on my own. I can look at the statistics, or the reported facts surrounding physically incontrovertible events – not the opinions mind you but the facts, and they will lead me to the same conclusions you’ve reached, even if we didn’t speak at all.

Your feelings meanwhile, are totally irrelevant to everyone but you. If 100 people get together with you and feel exactly the same way, it is no less irrelevant. If it’s 1,000 or 10,000, it’s still irrelevant, unless it’s accompanied by physical evidence or sound statistics. There is no bullshitting reality. And I will not feel guilty simply because you feel bad, no matter how strongly you feel that way.

“No one cares how you feel, they only care what you do.”

Your feelings of outrage are based on lies and fantasies. The dead cops – those are facts. Those things I care about. The more cops you kill the worse it will be for you. The police have unlimited resources to draw on. For every cop you kill, 1,000 will pursue you. You cannot possibly hope to win a shooting war with them, and you only shatter your own credibility by trying.

But you don’t have to be losers anymore. All you have to do, is stop acting like losers, and presto – you will stop losing. Don’t get high at 8:00 AM. Pull up your pants. Put on some respectable looking clothes, and go get a job. If you want a better job, one that pays more, just learn to do something that’s worth more. Your ethnic studies degree isn’t worth anything to anyone but you. Try focusing on something that’s worth more to others instead.

But most of all, quit acting like animals. Quit behaving like savages to yourselves and each other. If you behave civilized, you will be treated civilized. The Koreans don’t have your problem. The Vietnamese don’t. The Indians, Pakistanis, and even most of the recent black immigrants from Africa don’t have your problems. They don’t feel oppressed here, they feel liberated. Just like the other 79% of the population. They realize what real oppression is because they’ve seen it. You haven’t. And you aren’t getting anything from me just because you feel like you have.

No one cares about your ancient history. Like you, the cops arresting you were all born AFTER the civil rights movement, not before. You all know no other world. So quit crying about an injustice done to some ancient ancestor of yours who you can’t even name. They may have had it hard, but you’ve had it easy. The only part of the equation that hasn’t been there for you, is you.

I hire black people all the time. I hire brown people, yellow people, any color of person you can imagine. I don’t care about their color, I only care about what they can do. But most of you can’t seem to do a thing except complain about me. Some people may feel guilty about that, but I don’t. And if you think making me feel guilty is going to be a path to prosperity, then I have only one thing to say to you.

I've long argued that the NRA should be doing outreach specific aimed toward increasing firearms ownership among law abiding black Americans. The black crime problem falls harder on them after all than it ever will on me. I'm glad someone wasn't content to wait for them to get around to it.

But to be perfectly clear, I don't think there is such a thing that is only a civil rights issue for Black Americans. Legal firearms ownership is a civil right that's important for ALL Americans.

It’s a funny thing, owing more to our ability for pattern recognition than anything else, how the issues in our micro lives can often be extrapolated to the Macro world. Let me give you an example.

The 16 year old son of my girlfriend’s best friend, had a little incident at summer camp. I won’t go into the details, but it involved a permanent marker being used on him, while he was asleep. What amazed me was the reaction of his parents.

The mother urged that he be allowed to quit camp and return home. This is what you would expect from a mother. She feels the pain that her child feels, and is deeply persuaded by his embarrassment and humiliation. That’s all well and good. As you would expect, the father feels differently, but not because he’s trying to teach his son to be a man, but because the trip to camp represents a sunk cost which he can’t recover. His only instructions to his son were “too bad”.

As a spectator, both reactions horrified me. The mother’s reaction was what I expected, but this boy is an intelligent, sensitive 16 year old. Nope… no typo. This didn’t happen at age 11 like you would expect, but at 16. At that age, the humiliation of this even will travel with this kid the rest of his life. He’ll feel the embarrassment of it well into adulthood, and countless other people will inevitably be forced to share his pain as it effects his future decisions. His mother’s view has no place in this boy’s life at the moment. He should have to find a way to tough it out, and it’s the responsibility of his father to teach him how.

My view on how it should be handled was mildly horrifying to my girlfriend, but she’s getting used to me. So she listened quietly and respectfully as I explained the way boys are. I told her that the issue could be resolved one of two ways – the smart way, and the stupid way. Either would work to the benefit of the boy, and is the advice I wish his father had given him. Here’s my thoughts.

No one has confessed to this assault by Sharpie, so the smart way would be for him to grab the smallest boy who is giggling, and subject him to enough threat or non-damaging pain for him to confess the name of the ringleader. (I imagine a bent arm or finger.) With that information, he should calmly walk up to the ringleader, grab his collar, and head butt him until he hears something break, or the other kids stop him. The stupid plan was similar, but involved picking the largest of the other boys whatever his involvement, and doing the same.

The result of this is that our friend’s son will probably get his ass kicked. He’s not very tough, and not used to standing up for himself. But as he is no doubt learning right now, there are worse things that can happen to a 16 year old than an ass kicking. And from the moment he did this, at least he’d be able to hold his head up, and send a clear message to the others that he should never be f***’ed with again.

That’s the thing the women never seem to understand. He doesn’t have to win the fight. They didn’t draw on his face because they don’t think he can win a fight. They did so because they didn’t think he has the spirit to fight back at all. That’s all he really has to do to earn their respect and to retain his own. But if his mother gets her way (and she’s likely to) for the rest of his life he’ll be afraid to risk, and afraid to fight back. He’ll spend the rest of his life looking for his mother to come swoop in and save him from the bullies. He’ll live his whole life in fear, and make whatever stupid decisions he has to in order to ensure that he’s sheltered from that fear – by someone else. If he doesn’t rise to this stupid boyhood challenge, he may never be able to rise to another. The rest of his life he’s going to be a slave to whoever manages to intimidate him the most.

America today feels the same to me. Millennials are the most over-nurtured generation in American history, owing to decades of Feminist teaching about how toxic masculinity is and how fearful they are of violence. It’s much harder these days to find a man than it is to find a male. And those males are weak, whiny little creatures with no self-respect and that don’t deserve the respect of others. I don’t believe in violence. I don’t think it’s a good solution to most problems. But sometimes I think it’s a necessary one. These little bearded things however, think that the only violence they should ever have to cope with, is violence offered on his behalf by someone else.

In America today, ISIS and Islam murder us and we are told by our leaders that ‘hate isn’t the answer”. It certainly seems to be to Islam. Our black population lies about the police and then murders them in cold blood, and we stand by and do nothing, or talk about how bad white people should feel for inspiring this rage. We don’t compel them to act like civilized adults. We don’t force them to treat us with the respect we deserve. And in the end, it’s because we don’t deserve any. We deserve their scorn and wrath. We deserve their anger. Not because of their childish fantasies about injustice, but because we don’t force them to recognize the truth.

America is gone. Shattered in a couple of generations by the philosophy of women running headlong into the violence of savages. But we still have one small chance to redeem ourselves. We just need to stop accepting the derision of our enemies and fight back.

Sunday, July 17, 2016

One of the most famous and controversial VP picks in the History of the United States was Theodore Roosevelt being selected by William McKinley. What did Teddy say about that honor?"I would a great deal rather be anything, say professor of history, than vice president." For a few weeks, there has been speculation as to whom would be the Trump choice for veep. Ann Coulter wrote a lengthy article on Trump's first mistake in the form of a Veep selection. Other pundits went bananas over the Newt or Christie prospect. The selection of Mike Pence was met with the same "insider vs outsider" debate.It's all hogwash. The important takeaway from the Veepstakes focuses on the ability for Trump to have completely stolen the limelight from Hillary. No one cares about Hillary. Her campaign was all about her being a woman, forget about everything else. She is shrill in speech and is like vinegar to sugar in the fly-catching department. The media loses ratings when they try to feign excitement over Hillary. People don't care about her VP choices. They really don't care about Trump's, but a phenomena not seen since the days of Howard Stern on WNBC is happening. In the famous exchange below, substitute Trump for Stern and just imagine this conversation happening at Clinton HQ:

Researcher: The average radio listener listens for eighteen minutes. The average Howard Stern fan listens for - are you ready for this? - an hour and twenty minutes.

Trump has harnessed that same effect. The people that get paid for political prognostications aren't picking up on the method and the madness. The same people that tell us all year long that VP doesn't matter are suddenly overwhelmed by the VP process. I read and listened to a few VP analysis' just to to prove my point. The focus is squarely on Hillary because she is out of options and is rapidly sinking even with the help of the media and Soros. Some on the nevertrump right are lamenting the Pence choice and anticipate Hillary to make her "over the top pick". I think it was Glen Beck that went into a frothing lather about how Hillary will pick her Mondale and it ill be ll over...
What nonsense. I want to remind people why Jimmy Carter won the presidency and it had nothing to do with Fritz Mondale. The GOP was split between apologetic nice guy Gerry Ford and the well spoken strong man Ron Reagan. Reagan was vilified for splitting the party.
Bill Clinton was elected not because of his choosing Al Gore, but because Ross Perot split the conservatives. Remember Ross Perot selected Stockdale who probably hurt him a bit, but seriously, Perot still garnered a massive popular vote.

So Trump could've selected Gilbert Godfried and nothing would change. Hillary can raise the ghost of Eleanor Roosevelt and it wouldn't matter. This is her final act in the vaudeville of her career. She made a hell of a run and now should do us all a favor and retire from politics. She has no chance. Getting the Sanders endorsement was as exciting as denture adhesives. For laughs, I hope she picks Liz Warren because that would continue to stoke the humor from the alt-right. Maybe she'll pick a LGBTQ Latino Politician to further demonstrate that the Dem Party could give a rat's ass about the rest of the country. It doesn't matter. She has to do something big and it won't be a VP pick. Put a fork in her campaign...

Angry over the way “Black Lives Matter” had been stealing their sympathetic NYTimes front page coverage, ISIS launched another major attack against the west in Nice killing (at present reports) 83 people. You may think I’m being callous for connecting “Black Lives Matter” and ISIS, but they are both in the same business (the systematic destruction of the social mores of the west) and according to President Obama anyway, are caused by the exact same “radical extremism”.

This has got to be a challenge for Obama because although both organizations are striving toward the same goals, Obama is more sympathetic to “Black Lives Matter” than ISIS, while ISIS is unarguably killing more ‘people of privilege’. He probably thinks about it the same way he does the College Basketball tournament. His personal team Columbia and Oberlin never really have a chance, but he still feels the need to root for someone. I guess the BLM crowd is just gonna have to step up their game if they really want to be the leaders in the destruction of the west, and continue the support of America’s commander in chief.

It’s a challenge for Obama in another way too. Obama, as you know, thinks and acts in all ways, exactly like a woman. Women are torn when it comes to “Black Lives Matter” and ISIS. They are simultaneously afraid of all the violence, mayhem and murder, but the prospect of being gang raped by swarthy foreigners touches some darkly perverse fantasy zone for them. So when it comes to foreign threats, a woman’s first instinct is to surrender rather than fight, and to embrace Stockholm syndrome with all their energy.

So Obama, raised by women, surrounded by woman advisers, and inculcated into the tribe of Male Feminists as a charter member, feels compelled to surrender to the violence offered by both organizations, but he doesn’t really know how. If all those white men who are clinging to their guns and bibles would finally shut up for a minute, he could collect his thoughts and make a decision.

In the meantime, he’s pretending that neither the homicidal ISIS maniacs nor the “Black Live Matter” psychopathic criminals represent any real threat. He focuses on talking about the ‘tiny minority’ of people who actually commit the crimes, and does his best to ignore the much larger crowd of sympathetic well wishers. The fact that they can be seen all over youtube shouting ‘death to America’ and ‘What do we want, Dead Cops, when do we want it, NOW” hasn’t made that easy.

With all that said, where there is a will there’s a way. And there is no real problem so big that this administration can’t ignore it. Both organizations would kill white men first, so he’s content that he’s doing all he can to help both groups, without actually seeming to. I’ll give 5 to 1 he ends up on a golf course somewhere in the next 72 hours. Makes you proud to be a progressive doesn't it?

Thursday, July 14, 2016

The Lefty-Media cannot admit it. Bob Woodward has a very difficult way of getting around the truth. No, it's not her vocal modulations as much as it is her voice! That grating voice! If the antagonist in Edgar Allen Poe's "The Tell-Tale Heart" was completely freaked-out by the old man and his "vulture eye", a modern day Poe would no doubt be inspired by the grating voice of Hillary. All the lib media is trying to dance around her horrifying voice by saying it's a volume modulation problem... No - It's a Personality Problem! She can't control her voice, her cadence and timbre because she is impossibly wretched. Forget about the movie "The Kings Speech". I think a voice coach would be the one cursing vehemently if he had to endure this!

She sounds like this:

Who wants to hear the wretched tones of a nagging mother-in-law for four years?!?!?

You've heard of the Red Pepper Challenge, The Ice Water Challenge... well I've dreamed up the "Hillary Clinton Challenge".

I was going to email Anthony Cumia or Gavin McInnes to see if they would broadcast the "Hillary Clinton Challenge".

The rules: You take a normal red-blooded American Male and hook them up to a blood-pressure monitor and any other gizmo. You strap them to a chair and lock the door and force the guy to listen to a Hillary Clinton speech for the duration in surround-sound at an unreasonable volume.

If you can sit through the speech without a significant increase in blood pressure, you may be a Hillary Supporter. However, very few people (even some women) find it very difficult to listen to her for prolonged periods without injury. I think the results would be telling and perhaps an alternative to water-boarding.

Here's the thing... For the last 8 years in particular, and the last 50 years in general, Liberalism has been dedicated to smashing the standards of social acceptability that were responsible for building all of western civilization. Those standards weren't a result of hate and racism like the left says, but of an organic growth of society over the centuries where social mores that led to success were reinforced, and those that led to failure were rejected. But for a generation and a half, the left's goal has been to smash society's unwritten rules about normalcy and acceptability, through the force of law and the might of an overarching, intrusive, and nearly all powerful state.

BLM is arguing for a further weakening of those standards. They are demanding that violent and criminal behavior be ostensibly condoned, by making it impossible for those we've charged with enforcing our laws against such savagery, to do their jobs if a black suspect is involved. If they achieve their goals, crime in black communities will get worse not better, and our ability to keep it from spilling over into less violent communities will be hampered in very real ways.

This is the final 'rock and hard place' debate of the west. Either the "Black Lives Matter" movement has to fail, or western civilization has to. That's not about hate, or any passion at all. It's about the behavior we require from free citizens living in a free society, and the responsibility we have to one another to offer some limited protection from violence. The facts support none of the BLM claims. And we can't afford to let this last pillar of society be destroyed by the solipsism of the left.

Their unsupported feelings of persecution simply cannot be allowed to matter in this debate more than the facts on the ground.

My only direct comment is that it isn't possible for the government to make intelligent decision making mandatory. Those rules are (inevitably) enforced by nature.

According to the NRA website, there are no permits required to carry a long gun or shotgun in Ohio. Concealed carry requires a permit from Ohio or one of the reciprocating states. So we can expect a bunch of openly racist, militant blacks who advocate for the killing of white policemen, to be present and armed with rifles or shotguns at the Republican convention.

This doesn't change my mind about gun control, and I don't think it will change anyone elses mind either. On the contrary, it will just polarize the issue even further. Democrats will be even more devoted to disarming all Americans, and gun owners will be less likely to surrender their weapons if banned.

And when it ends with blood, everyone on both sides will all say "I told you so."

Monday, July 11, 2016

Last night a small crowd of NYU students marched down University place from Union Square to Washington Square, screaming “no justice no peace” and “Black Lives Matter”. One particularly drunk and hostile protester slipped away from the crowd over to Broadway where he took his anger out on a garbage can. He spent 5 minutes ripping it from its holder on the corner, and smashing it against a phone booth while loudly complaining about injustice and the ‘f***ing white man’. Helicopters followed the protest at a very low altitude. Everyone ignored the screaming garbage can vandal.

There were (what I would call) riots all weekend, but you’d never know it to read the NYTimes. They are sticking firmly to the liberal narrative in spite of it's obvious collapse, and in the process burning the last of their credibility. Which is certainly what I would expect from them. They created this monster by adding gasoline to the fire for ages, and they know it. So now they’re going to distance themselves as best they can. There were a number of injuries last night and there are reports that some police stations were hit with bullets. But fortunately there were no deaths directly associated with the protests. In response to that black on (mostly white) racism, the NYTimes had some video from a fictional account of a white family that has a peaceful interaction with a cop who has pulled them over for a broken tail-light on the front page of the digital version.

When all else fails, and it obviously has, the left resorts to popular fiction. If it wasn't so brazen and ridiculous it would be laughable.

President Obama is floundering, and it’s obvious. He says “we may never know what the Dallas shooter’s motives were”. That is, we won’t unless we ask the shooter. His last words were that he wanted to kill white people. But in order to preserve the illusion that racism is exclusively a white on black phenomenon, no liberal could admit the truth, especially president Obama. He's so obviously lying about the whole thing that I'm pretty confident he's fooling no one.

He also says that cops have issues in communities where they know there are a lot of guns. But there are places in the south where you have to drive 1,000 miles before you pass a house that doesn’t have a gun in it, and police don’t seem to have any particular problem there. Meanwhile, south Chicago is a ‘gun free zone’ where there are almost no legal guns, yet the cops have nothing but problems. And that says nothing about the problems of the people who live there, who seem to shoot each other at a pretty astounding rate given that they're all protected by the kind of strong gun control laws that the left wants for the rest of America.

Obviously Obama and the liberal left are having a real problem understanding reality. That's certainly no secret to the readers here. But it’s nice to see respected pols with no dog in this fight coming out and calling it what it is. Rudy Giuliani has been particularly plain spoken and realistic. If you feel like you’re living in some kind of Orwellian dystopic fantasy after reading the New York Times, google what Rudy has had to say lately. He’ll remind you that you aren’t the crazy one.

Our current race problems are the result of another stupid idea hatched in America’s teacher’s lounges. It's another failed attempt at social engineering in the interest of getting equal results from unequal input. It misidentified the problem in America’s black communities as ‘systemic white racism’ and has tried to put solutions in place to solve that problem in spite of the fact that it hasn’t exist for 50 years. When black under-performance continued to persist, all they ever did was double down. Now we’re 50 years into the idiotic idea that what happens to black Americans is never their fault, and the social casino where the left has been gambling with our culture would like America to cover it's losses. That bill will be paid in the blood of innocent people. And since the BLM movement has no real chance in a hot war against the law enforcement community of America's cities, most of the blood will come from the people that have been most deluded by the mass psychosis of the last 50 years.

It might help if the BLM movement had some kind of goal in mind other than 'tearing it all down', but to date nothing is proposed. It's just a more violent version of the 'safe space' and 'trigger warning' nonsense that America's campuses have demanded. The BLM movement is a sort of 'occupy Harlem' where there are no real solutions because there are no real problems. All they really want is for reality to stop being reality. They want assurances of wealth, safety, and protection in spite of them not realizing that it's people who behave like they do that people need the protection from. What they want is for stupid and self destructive behavior to be as highly valued as intelligent behavior. And hearing them ask for black criminals to not be shot when they threaten the lives of policemen, should be taken no more seriously than that occupy idiot who wanted 150K a year because he had a masters degree in puppetry.

We'll all get right on that.

I do think this will escalate. The scenario I imagine is some police middle manager with a small groups of patrolmen. They get cut off from the larger group of cops, surrounded by raging protesters, and take incoming rocks and Molotov cocktails from the crowd on all sides. They hear what they think is gunfire and are convinced (right or wrong) that they are being fired upon, so in their self-defense, they open fire on the crowd. Then the public purge will begin.

If you live in a mostly white neighborhood and have little contact with criminal blacks, I wouldn’t get too panicked. Black Americans may be poorly socialized, but the vast majority of them aren’t bloodthirsty criminals and are as concerned about all this BS as anyone else. They may be angry and hate white people, and blame them for their hardship, but that’s not the same thing as trying to do them harm. As usual, they’ll be more interested in grabbing a big screen TV than hurting whitey. If you really want to prepare for this crisis properly you should stock up on food so you can stay at home nights, then sell ‘Best Buy” short.

We can talk about the politics of it after the rest of the blood has been spilled, but you know Hillary will only make things worse not better. Anything but a Trump vote is basically asking America's academic social engineers to double down one last time. Unless you think these protests and the killings that go with them are a step in the right direction toward making America a better place, you had better vote for Trump.

Friday, July 8, 2016

At the core of the pathology of liberalism is the belief that how you feel about the facts, is a much more important component of reality than the facts themselves. In how this falls out politically, there is an element of co-dependence to it. The rank and file liberal only wants to be freed from accountability. They want someone else to take the responsibility for all the bad things that have ever happened to them in their life and to take responsibility for fixing it for them. While the liberal leadership, for the most part cynically exploits the emotions of their followers as a component of their individual will to power.

I don’t know anything about the individual BLM protesters who fired on cops in Dallas last night, but absent all other information I can tell you one thing. They feel like they were perfectly justified in their actions. They feel that black America is being punished by the police for being black. They look at the unequal outcomes that black Americans achieve and are so ego invested in their views, that they lack the ability to take personal responsibility for their lives. To them, it’s easier to strike out in rage than it is to ponder their individual responsibility and use reason.

Our liberal politicians, especially President Obama, are deeply complicit in this shooting. Obama has a foot in both camps, so instead of his view being supported by a cynical will to power like Hillary Clinton’s, he is in fact a true believer. He is convinced as a black man, that the cops really do punish black America for being black, instead of simply reacting to far more common criminal behavior by black Americans. The best stats we can come up with contradict that view, but Obama isn’t as concerned about facts as he is how he feels about those facts.

This shooting was inevitable. So too will be the next one, and the one after that. This is the end product of two or three generations of children, instead of being taught how to think, being taught that feeling is the same as thinking. For decades the liberal academic left has been striving to shatter the organic bonds of society and to replace them with top down laws for enforcing their view of ‘fairness’. They have labored long and hard in ‘persistent bold experimentation’ to reshape society, with little to no thought to the unintended consequences of what they destroy.

Well this is what their version of society brings. Five cops dead, another seven wounded, and many more innocent black men and cops of all races to be killed in the near future.

I saw the video of the Baton Rouge shooting, and to me it looks like a justified shooting, all things considered. The Minnesota shooting I have fewer facts about, but that case is obviously less clear. I have no doubt that the cop was afraid for his life, but his reasons for that fear and whether that fear was justified are as yet unknown. From what I do know, it looks like he wildly over-reacted, and should probably be punished for it. But that’s just how it looks for now. Facts will out.

But as I type this, policemen all over the country are waking up and learning that the war of words that BLM, the President and American Liberalism has been waging on them, has now turned into a hot war. I am completely convinced that this makes the next shooting of a black man by a cop much more likely not less likely. That’s tragic but inevitable so long as we are prepared to concern ourselves more with feelings of outrage than facts on the ground.

This will get worse before it gets better. The violence will escalate not diminish. Many black Americans have become deeply ego invested in the idea that they are not responsible for their lives. And as we’ve seen, they will defend that ego investment with bullets if they feel it’s necessary. There will be no appeasing black America now. No amount of money and preferential treatment will buy them off. They will settle for nothing less than the surrender of reason and fact, to their feelings of outrage and injustice.

That’s really the only thing that makes the BLM movement different. It’s utter unwillingness to see any opposing side of the issue. They believe they are supported by the latest philosophical thinking about intersectionality, victimhood, and oppression. They believe they are perfectly correct in their feelings, and there is no room for reasoned debate. To disagree with them about facts brings only more rage. And from their perspective they’re perfectly correct. Reason and facts have no place in any discussions with the BLM movement.

I find this very disconcerting because I live in a city where 40,000 heavily armed, blue collar men defend the population from a criminal element where 97% of the illegal shootings are minority on minority. Virtually all the privately held firearms in New York City are in the hands of non-white criminals. That means the camps are already assembled, armed and need only to get properly organized.

The “Black Lives Matter” movement is providing that organization. And they’re doing so with the unwavering political support of the entire liberal left from the teacher’s lounges to the Whitehouse. This is in effect, the seeds of a civil war. And one that will be joined with enthusiasm by all of America’s enemies. ISIS will no doubt be doing its level best to make the most of this conflict. As will foreign powers who believe they have a stake in the destruction of America.

There will no doubt be many civilian casualties in this war, and I believe most of the unjustified killing will be minorities. That’s particularly tragic because it will create the exact environment that BLM thought they were complaining about in the first place. This is an environment where the future oppression of black America, is almost inevitable. And since it’s unlikely to be diffused by our politicians, I believe it will be bloody.